Opinion: Toxics bill fails to put New Jerseyans' health and safety first

I have dedicated my career to helping patients live a healthier life in a less toxic environment through my practice and community education and outreach efforts, so, it was with great anticipation that I learned of the newly introduced Senate bill 697. The bill recently introduced into the U. S. Congress will overhaul how we regulate toxic chemicals in our homes, communities and consumer products. U.S. Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and David Vitter (R-La.) co-sponsored the legislation, which would replace the outdated Toxic Substances Control Act. Unfortunately, the bill falls short in critical areas and places industry's interests over the safety and health of our communities.

The Udall-Vitter bill would not aid in alleviating many of the health concerns New Jersey residents face every day. More and more research is showing that exposure to toxic chemicals in the environment is causing increasing levels of chronic disease and disability. One example is childhood cancer. Incidence rates for acute lymphocytic leukemia are higher in New Jersey than the rest of the U.S. Another is poor birth outcomes. More low-weight babies are born in New Jersey than other states. (Compared to infants of normal weight, low-birth-weight infants may be more at risk for many health problems.)

Research has shown that environmental hazards play a role in the development of childhood leukemia, including ionizing radiation, solvents, pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Low birth weight has been linked to air pollution (both indoor and outdoor) and drinking water contaminated with lead.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine have urged doctors to warn their patients that exposure to toxic chemicals before conception and during pregnancy can have significant and long-lasting effects on reproductive health, including low birth weight.

However, the proposed Udall-Vitter bill does not provide adequate protection from these and other problems. For example, the reviews that assess chemical safety wouldn't have to take into account aggregate exposure to multiple sources of a chemical. Nor would it consider the potential interactions from exposure to other chemicals, as recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. And no action is required on chemicals already known to be toxic, such as persistent bio-accumulative and toxic pollutants.

The bill also does not require assessment of exposures and risks that could result from decades-old contamination (legacy exposures) or accidental spills. These legacy contaminants are responsible for disproportionate impacts on human health in low-income communities and communities of color, and where chemicals are stored at old industrial sites, they increase the potential of chemical spills or disasters. The state of New Jersey has more than its share of current and former industrial sites that are spreading toxic chemicals into entire neighborhoods. New Jersey is the "nation's capital" of Superfund sites, with 114 in total.

Many of our homes have been built atop pollution. Rivers are Superfund sites. Contamination has sickened residents and damaged property values. The environment has been tainted by generations of dirty industry and illegal dumping in the Garden State.

The broad pre-emption of state-level action on chemicals is another deeply troubling flaw in the Udall-Vitter bill. The federal Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, TSCA and countless other environmental laws allow states to enact stronger rules when necessary to protect their residents. Within the last decade, more than 30 states have enacted laws addressing some of the worst chemicals found in consumer products. These reforms benefit all states, as they have caused manufacturers to broadly phase out these toxic chemicals from their products sold nationwide. The Udall-Vitter bill would denote a dramatic departure by restricting states' authority to regulate chemicals. That vital role for the states must be safeguarded.

Simply put, this new industry-supported bill would fail to ensure that chemicals are safe and would continue to allow products onto our shelves that our hazardous to our health.

As a doctor, I am asking our U.S. senators to be accountable for our health. In the case of federal toxics reform, this means voting for chemical policy that aids in disease prevention and protects our families and voting against a bill -- such as the proposed one -- where industry's special interests prevail.

Aly Cohen, M.D., FACR, FABOIM, is founder and medical director of Integrative Rheumatology Associates PC, in Monroe, and a Jones/Lovell fellow of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine.